At 7/10/2015 3:07:54 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:God is defined in such a way that existence is indisputable.

God is The Ultimate Reality. Truth. The Way. Existence As it Is.

Your claims are empty, useless and tiresome.

This is universal in the scriptures that all the major world religions are based on.

Baloney, that is not true at all.

BrahmanAllahTaoetc.

These all are different names for the same entity, and this should be evident to anyone who actually understands what these scriptures are actually saying.

Are you dense? Every religion says something completely different than any other. Have you even looked at any other religion other than Christianity?

It's really not that hard to accept or grasp. The problem is, people attach far too much baggage. They seem to think that accepting one thing means accepting a multitude of other things.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

But it is not far from how it works with Theists. Providing that they are taught that belief when they are young. Which is the case for the vast majority of adult theists. Or Christians. I would say 95% of them.

Makes sense, really, Because the evidence for God is SO scant as to be nil. And if you are not taught to believe in him as a kid you will find NOTHING during the remainder of your life that would even hint in the slightest way of his existence.

So yeah...teaching, brainwashing, indoctrination, ignorance, whatever, ALL are prerequisites for any sort of Fundamentalist Theistic belief system.

At 7/10/2015 3:07:54 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:God is defined in such a way that existence is indisputable.

God is The Ultimate Reality. Truth. The Way. Existence As it Is.

This is universal in the scriptures that all the major world religions are based on.

BrahmanAllahTaoetc.

These all are different names for the same entity, and this should be evident to anyone who actually understands what these scriptures are actually saying.

It's really not that hard to accept or grasp. The problem is, people attach far too much baggage. They seem to think that accepting one thing means accepting a multitude of other things.

Why does that not make the concept meaningless? For example, Tao is meant to be a meaningless concept. One, infinity, and zero all wrapped up. Any word which refers to "Truth", or "Ultimate Reailty", or "Existence as it is", can be replaced by "reality", or "everything". It seems to me that you're just taking a mundane word like "reality" and capitalizing it in order to inject a a magical or spiritual component which may or may not be there, depending on what truly exists in reality. Then you call it an entity, seemingly arbitrarily.

At 7/10/2015 3:07:54 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:God is defined in such a way that existence is indisputable.

God is The Ultimate Reality. Truth. The Way. Existence As it Is.

This is universal in the scriptures that all the major world religions are based on.

BrahmanAllahTaoetc.

These all are different names for the same entity, and this should be evident to anyone who actually understands what these scriptures are actually saying.

It's really not that hard to accept or grasp. The problem is, people attach far too much baggage. They seem to think that accepting one thing means accepting a multitude of other things.

Why does that not make the concept meaningless? For example, Tao is meant to be a meaningless concept. One, infinity, and zero all wrapped up. Any word which refers to "Truth", or "Ultimate Reailty", or "Existence as it is", can be replaced by "reality", or "everything". It seems to me that you're just taking a mundane word like "reality" and capitalizing it in order to inject a a magical or spiritual component which may or may not be there, depending on what truly exists in reality. Then you call it an entity, seemingly arbitrarily.

The reason why the concept is not meaningless has to do with the fact that most people can't tell the difference between "creation" and what is "uncreated".

Most people don't really understand what "objectivity" means.

But if you have a problem with what I'm doing, take it up with who writes the scriptures. Translators will often times take words that describe a process and turn them into a proper noun. Why am I capitalizing these words? Because this is a lot like how scriptures are in their original language. The names actually mean something.

If someone were to translate what I'm saying into another language, they would not translate those words, they would use them as proper nouns.

Take the words that I'm capitalizing, and turn them into foreign sounding gibberish.

That is what ends up happening when people translate the names of God in scripture. It's done out of a sincere reverence, but its the meaning of the name that makes it important, not the pronunciation.

And no, these concepts are not meaningless. There is a lot of meaning in them.

Here is a mantra for you, it reveals a great deal about the nature of language and creation. If you stare directly at the sun, and repeat it a hundred thousand times, you will reach enlightenment... in some sense.

All Statements of Truth, all Experience, all Affirmations are...

True in some senseFalse in some senseMeaningless in some senseTrue and meaningless in some senseFalse and meaningless in some senseand True, false, and meaningless in some sense.

"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

At 7/10/2015 3:07:54 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:God is defined in such a way that existence is indisputable.

God is The Ultimate Reality. Truth. The Way. Existence As it Is.

This is universal in the scriptures that all the major world religions are based on.

BrahmanAllahTaoetc.

These all are different names for the same entity, and this should be evident to anyone who actually understands what these scriptures are actually saying.

It's really not that hard to accept or grasp. The problem is, people attach far too much baggage. They seem to think that accepting one thing means accepting a multitude of other things.

Why does that not make the concept meaningless? For example, Tao is meant to be a meaningless concept. One, infinity, and zero all wrapped up. Any word which refers to "Truth", or "Ultimate Reailty", or "Existence as it is", can be replaced by "reality", or "everything". It seems to me that you're just taking a mundane word like "reality" and capitalizing it in order to inject a a magical or spiritual component which may or may not be there, depending on what truly exists in reality. Then you call it an entity, seemingly arbitrarily.

The reason why the concept is not meaningless has to do with the fact that most people can't tell the difference between "creation" and what is "uncreated".

Most people don't really understand what "objectivity" means.

But if you have a problem with what I'm doing, take it up with who writes the scriptures. Translators will often times take words that describe a process and turn them into a proper noun. Why am I capitalizing these words? Because this is a lot like how scriptures are in their original language. The names actually mean something.

If someone were to translate what I'm saying into another language, they would not translate those words, they would use them as proper nouns.

Take the words that I'm capitalizing, and turn them into foreign sounding gibberish.

That is what ends up happening when people translate the names of God in scripture. It's done out of a sincere reverence, but its the meaning of the name that makes it important, not the pronunciation.

And no, these concepts are not meaningless. There is a lot of meaning in them.

Here is a mantra for you, it reveals a great deal about the nature of language and creation. If you stare directly at the sun, and repeat it a hundred thousand times, you will reach enlightenment... in some sense.

I'm not sure how most of what you said actually pertains to my question. I'm asking you, if the nouns you're using, proper or not, essentially mean "reality" (or do they mean something else/more?) then what is the utility of using those words/phrases. Wouldn't you be obfuscating your own language, thereby thwarting your own attempt to communicate?

All Statements of Truth, all Experience, all Affirmations are...

True in some senseFalse in some senseMeaningless in some senseTrue and meaningless in some senseFalse and meaningless in some senseand True, false, and meaningless in some sense.

Hmm. I've said the exact same words in the exact same way before. Pretty mundane though.

P1. Be God indoctrinated as a child.P2. Never apply any critical thinking till you die.3. You're a theist now.

Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.